Appeal No. 1998-2603
Application 08/483,641
and the division of a bitmap display into several
regions, also referred to in the art by many other
terms such as viewports, files, ports, windows,
pages or layered bitmaps, to provide separate
display of video information in independent screen
regions.
With respect to “independently defined positioning patterns”
(brief-page 10), this argument fails at the outset because it
is not based on limitations appearing in the claims. We find
no “independently defined” requirement in claim 1. See In re
Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1350, 213 USPQ 1, 5 ((CCPA 1982).
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1, and likewise the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3
through 5, 7 through 9, 11 and 12 which stand or fall
therewith.
With respect to claim 13, Appellants argue the
requirement that the pattern “is selected from a plurality of
patterns” is not taught by the cited references (brief-page
11).
The Examiner contends that “a pattern selected from
a plurality of patterns,... is equivalent to the ‘permissible
function’ (col. 10 line 33-34)” of Beard (answer-page 6).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007